Censorship is de suppression of speech, pubwic communication, or oder information, on de basis dat such materiaw is considered objectionabwe, harmfuw, sensitive, powiticawwy incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government audorities or by community consensus.[1]

Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Oder groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individuaw such as an audor or oder creator engages in censorship of deir own works or speech, it is referred to as sewf-censorship.

Censorship couwd be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship.[citation needed] It occurs in a variety of different media, incwuding speech, books, music, fiwms, and oder arts, de press, radio, tewevision, and de Internet for a variety of cwaimed reasons incwuding nationaw security, to controw obscenity, chiwd pornography, and hate speech, to protect chiwdren or oder vuwnerabwe groups, to promote or restrict powiticaw or rewigious views, and to prevent swander and wibew.

Direct censorship may or may not be wegaw, depending on de type, wocation, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by waw, but none of dese protections are absowute and freqwentwy a cwaim of necessity to bawance confwicting rights is made, in order to determine what couwd and couwd not be censored. There are no waws against sewf-censorship.

In 399 BC, Greek phiwosopher, Socrates, defied attempts by de Greek state to censor his phiwosophicaw teachings and was sentenced to deaf by drinking a poison, hemwock. Socrates' student, Pwato, is said to have advocated censorship in his essay on The Repubwic, which opposed de existence of democracy. In contrast to Pwato, Greek pwaywright Euripides (480–406 BC) defended de true wiberty of freeborn men, incwuding de right to speak freewy. In 1766, Sweden became de first country to abowish censorship by waw.[3]

The rationawe for censorship is different for various types of information censored:

Moraw censorship is de removaw of materiaws dat are obscene or oderwise considered morawwy qwestionabwe. Pornography, for exampwe, is often censored under dis rationawe, especiawwy chiwd pornography, which is iwwegaw and censored in most jurisdictions in de worwd.[4][5]

Miwitary censorship is de process of keeping miwitary intewwigence and tactics confidentiaw and away from de enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is de process of gweaning miwitary information, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Powiticaw censorship occurs when governments howd back information from deir citizens. This is often done to exert controw over de popuwace and prevent free expression dat might foment rebewwion.

Rewigious censorship is de means by which any materiaw considered objectionabwe by a certain rewigion is removed. This often invowves a dominant rewigion forcing wimitations on wess prevawent ones. Awternativewy, one rewigion may shun de works of anoder when dey bewieve de content is not appropriate for deir rewigion, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Corporate censorship is de process by which editors in corporate media outwets intervene to disrupt de pubwishing of information dat portrays deir business or business partners in a negative wight,[6][7] or intervene to prevent awternate offers from reaching pubwic exposure.[8]

Nikowai Yezhov, standing to de weft of Joseph Stawin, was shot in 1940. He was edited out of de photo by Soviet censors after his execution as a form of damnatio memoriae.[9] This powicy was commonwy appwied to high-ranking executed powiticaw enemies during Stawin's reign, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Strict censorship existed in de Eastern Bwoc.[10] Throughout de bwoc, de various ministries of cuwture hewd a tight rein on deir writers.[11] Cuwturaw products dere refwected de propaganda needs of de state.[11] Party-approved censors exercised strict controw in de earwy years.[12] In de Stawinist period, even de weader forecasts were changed if dey suggested dat de sun might not shine on May Day.[12] Under Nicowae Ceauşescu in Romania, weader reports were doctored so dat de temperatures were not seen to rise above or faww bewow de wevews which dictated dat work must stop.[12]

Independent journawism did not exist in de Soviet Union untiw Mikhaiw Gorbachev became its weader; aww reporting was directed by de Communist Party or rewated organizations. Pravda, de predominant newspaper in de Soviet Union, had a monopowy. Foreign newspapers were avaiwabwe onwy if dey were pubwished by Communist Parties sympadetic to de Soviet Union, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Possession and use of copying machines was tightwy controwwed in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, iwwegaw sewf-pubwished books and magazines. Possession of even a singwe samizdat manuscript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might invowve a visit from de KGB. Anoder outwet for works which did not find favor wif de audorities was pubwishing abroad.

Cuban media used to be operated under de supervision of de Communist Party'sDepartment of Revowutionary Orientation, which "devewops and coordinates propaganda strategies".[16] Connection to de Internet is restricted and censored.[17]

Censorship awso takes pwace in capitawist nations, such as Uruguay. In 1973, a miwitary coup took power in Uruguay, and de State practiced censorship. For exampwe, writer Eduardo Gaweano was imprisoned and water was forced to fwee. His book Open Veins of Latin America was banned by de right-wing miwitary government, not onwy in Uruguay, but awso in Chiwe and Argentina.[18]

In de Repubwic of Singapore, Section 33 of de Fiwms Act originawwy banned de making, distribution and exhibition of "party powiticaw fiwms", at pain of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Act furder defines a "party powiticaw fiwm" as any fiwm or video

(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behawf of any powiticaw party in Singapore or any body whose objects rewate whowwy or mainwy to powitics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or

(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any powiticaw end in Singapore

In 2001, de short documentary cawwed A Vision of Persistence on opposition powitician J. B. Jeyaretnam was awso banned for being a "party powiticaw fiwm". The makers of de documentary, aww wecturers at de Ngee Ann Powytechnic, water submitted written apowogies and widdrew de documentary from being screened at de 2001 Singapore Internationaw Fiwm Festivaw in Apriw, having been towd dey couwd be charged in court. Anoder short documentary cawwed Singapore Rebew by Martyn See, which documented Singapore Democratic Party weader Dr Chee Soon Juan's acts of civiw disobedience, was banned from de 2005 Singapore Internationaw Fiwm Festivaw on de same grounds and See is being investigated for possibwe viowations of de Fiwms Act.

This waw, however, is often disregarded when such powiticaw fiwms are made supporting de ruwing Peopwe's Action Party (PAP). Channew NewsAsia's five-part documentary series on Singapore's PAP ministers in 2005, for exampwe, was not considered a party powiticaw fiwm.

Exceptions are awso made when powiticaw fiwms are made concerning powiticaw parties of oder nations. Fiwms such as Michaew Moore's Fahrenheit 911 are dus awwowed to screen regardwess of de waw.

Since March 2009, de Fiwms Act has been amended to awwow party powiticaw fiwms as wong as dey were deemed factuaw and objective by a consuwtative committee. Some monds water, dis committee wifted de ban on Singapore Rebew.

In wartime, expwicit censorship is carried out wif de intent of preventing de rewease of information dat might be usefuw to an enemy. Typicawwy it invowves keeping times or wocations secret, or dewaying de rewease of information (e.g., an operationaw objective) untiw it is of no possibwe use to enemy forces. The moraw issues here are often seen as somewhat different, as de proponents of dis form of censorship argues dat rewease of tacticaw information usuawwy presents a greater risk of casuawties among one's own forces and couwd possibwy wead to woss of de overaww confwict.

During Worwd War I wetters written by British sowdiers wouwd have to go drough censorship. This consisted of officers going drough wetters wif a bwack marker and crossing out anyding which might compromise operationaw secrecy before de wetter was sent. The Worwd War II catchphrase "Loose wips sink ships" was used as a common justification to exercise officiaw wartime censorship and encourage individuaw restraint when sharing potentiawwy sensitive information, uh-hah-hah-hah.

An exampwe of "sanitization" powicies comes from de USSR under Joseph Stawin, where pubwicwy used photographs were often awtered to remove peopwe whom Stawin had condemned to execution, uh-hah-hah-hah. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, dis dewiberate and systematic awteration to aww of history in de pubwic mind is seen as one of de centraw demes of Stawinism and totawitarianism.

Censorship is occasionawwy carried out to aid audorities or to protect an individuaw, as wif some kidnappings when attention and media coverage of de victim can sometimes be seen as unhewpfuw.[23][24]

In de context of secondary schoow education, de way facts and history are presented greatwy infwuences de interpretation of contemporary dought, opinion and sociawization, uh-hah-hah-hah. One argument for censoring de type of information disseminated is based on de inappropriate qwawity of such materiaw for de young. The use of de "inappropriate" distinction is in itsewf controversiaw, as it changed heaviwy. A Bawwantine Books version of de book Fahrenheit 451 which is de version used by most schoow cwasses[26] contained approximatewy 75 separate edits, omissions, and changes from de originaw Bradbury manuscript.

Copy approvaw is de right to read and amend an articwe, usuawwy an interview, before pubwication, uh-hah-hah-hah. Many pubwications refuse to give copy approvaw but it is increasingwy becoming common practice when deawing wif pubwicity anxious cewebrities.[28] Picture approvaw is de right given to an individuaw to choose which photos wiww be pubwished and which wiww not. Robert Redford is weww known for insisting upon picture approvaw.[29] Writer approvaw is when writers are chosen based on wheder dey wiww write fwattering articwes or not. Howwywood pubwicist Pat Kingswey is known for banning certain writers who wrote undesirabwy about one of her cwients from interviewing any of her oder cwients.[citation needed]

According to a Pew Research Center and de Cowumbia Journawism Review survey, "About one-qwarter of de wocaw and nationaw journawists say dey have purposewy avoided newswordy stories, whiwe nearwy as many acknowwedge dey have softened de tone of stories to benefit de interests of deir news organizations. Fuwwy four-in-ten (41%) admit dey have engaged in eider or bof of dese practices."[32]

Threats to media freedom have shown a significant increase in Europe in recent years, according to a study pubwished in Apriw 2017 by de Counciw of Europe. This resuwts in a fear of physicaw or psychowogicaw viowence, and de uwtimate resuwt is sewf-censorship by journawists.[33]

Book censorship can be enacted at de nationaw or sub-nationaw wevew, and can carry wegaw penawties for deir infraction, uh-hah-hah-hah. Books may awso be chawwenged at a wocaw, community wevew. As a resuwt, books can be removed from schoows or wibraries, awdough dese bans do not extend outside of dat area.

Aside from de usuaw justifications of pornography and obscenity, some fiwms are censored due to changing raciaw attitudes or powiticaw correctness in order to avoid ednic stereotyping and/or ednic offense despite its historicaw or artistic vawue. One exampwe is de stiww widdrawn "Censored Eweven" series of animated cartoons, which may have been innocent den, but are "incorrect" now.

Censorship of maps is often empwoyed for miwitary purposes. For exampwe, de techniqwe was used in former East Germany, especiawwy for de areas near de border to West Germany in order to make attempts of defection more difficuwt. Censorship of maps is awso appwied by Googwe Maps, where certain areas are grayed out or bwacked or areas are purposewy weft outdated wif owd imagery.[36]

One ewementary schoow's obscenity fiwter changed every reference to de word "tit" to "breast," so when a chiwd typed "U.S. Constitution" into de schoow computer, it changed it to Consbreastution, uh-hah-hah-hah.[41]

British photographer and visuaw artist Graham Ovenden's photos and paintings were ordered to be destroyed by a London's magistrate court in 2015 for being "indecent"[42] and deir copies had been removed from de onwine Tate gawwery.[43]

Artworks using dese four cowors were banned by Israewi waw in de 1980s

A 1980 Israewi waw forbade banned artwork composed of de four cowours of de Pawestinian fwag,[44] and Pawestinians were arrested for dispwaying such artwork or even for carrying swiced mewons wif de same pattern, uh-hah-hah-hah.[45][46][47]

Internet censorship is controw or suppression of de pubwishing or accessing of information on de Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations eider at de behest of government or on deir own initiative. Individuaws and organizations may engage in sewf-censorship on deir own or due to intimidation and fear.

The issues associated wif Internet censorship are simiwar to dose for offwine censorship of more traditionaw media. One difference is dat nationaw borders are more permeabwe onwine: residents of a country dat bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside de country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even dough dey wack physicaw or wegaw controw over de websites demsewves. This in turn reqwires de use of technicaw censorship medods dat are uniqwe to de Internet, such as site bwocking and content fiwtering.[53]

Unwess de censor has totaw controw over aww Internet-connected computers, such as in Norf Korea or Cuba, totaw censorship of information is very difficuwt or impossibwe to achieve due to de underwying distributed technowogy of de Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) protect free speech using technowogies dat guarantee materiaw cannot be removed and prevents de identification of audors. Technowogicawwy savvy users can often find ways to access bwocked content. Neverdewess, bwocking remains an effective means of wimiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as dose in China, are abwe to devote significant resources to buiwding and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.[53]

Views about de feasibiwity and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evowved in parawwew wif de devewopment of de Internet and censorship technowogies:

In November 2007, "Fader of de Internet" Vint Cerf stated dat he sees government controw of de Internet faiwing because de Web is awmost entirewy privatewy owned.[55]

A report of research conducted in 2007 and pubwished in 2009 by de Beckman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University stated dat: "We are confident dat de [censorship circumvention] toow devewopers wiww for de most part keep ahead of de governments' bwocking efforts", but awso dat "...we bewieve dat wess dan two percent of aww fiwtered Internet users use circumvention toows".[56]

In contrast, a 2011 report by researchers at de Oxford Internet Institute pubwished by UNESCO concwudes "... de controw of information on de Internet and Web is certainwy feasibwe, and technowogicaw advances do not derefore guarantee greater freedom of speech."[53]

A BBC Worwd Service poww of 27,973 aduwts in 26 countries, incwuding 14,306 Internet users,[57] was conducted between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010. The head of de powwing organization fewt, overaww, dat de poww showed dat:

Despite worries about privacy and fraud, peopwe around de worwd see access to de internet as deir fundamentaw right. They dink de web is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to reguwate it.[58]

The poww found dat nearwy four in five (78%) Internet users fewt dat de Internet had brought dem greater freedom, dat most Internet users (53%) fewt dat "de internet shouwd never be reguwated by any wevew of government anywhere", and awmost four in five Internet users and non-users around de worwd fewt dat access to de Internet was a fundamentaw right (50% strongwy agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongwy disagreed, and 6% gave no opinion).[59]

The rising usage of sociaw media in many nations has wed to de emergence of citizens organizing protests drough sociaw media, sometimes cawwed "Twitter Revowutions". The most notabwe of dese sociaw media wed protests were parts Arab Spring uprisings, starting in 2010. In response to de use of sociaw media in dese protests, de Tunisian government began a hack of Tunisian citizens' Facebook accounts, and reports arose of accounts being deweted.[60]

Automated systems can be used to censor sociaw media posts, and derefore wimit what citizens can say onwine. This most notabwy occurs in China, where sociaw media posts are automaticawwy censored depending on content. In 2013, Harvard powiticaw science professor Gary King wed a study to determine what caused sociaw media posts to be censored and found dat posts mentioning de government were not more or wess wikewy to be deweted if dey were supportive or criticaw of de government. Posts mentioning cowwective action were more wikewy to be deweted dan dose dat had not mentioned cowwective action, uh-hah-hah-hah.[61] Currentwy, sociaw media censorship appears primariwy as a way to restrict Internet users' abiwity to organize protests. For de Chinese government, seeing citizens unhappy wif wocaw governance is beneficiaw as state and nationaw weaders can repwace unpopuwar officiaws. King and his researchers were abwe to predict when certain officiaws wouwd be removed based on de number of unfavorabwe sociaw media posts.[62]

Sociaw media sites such as Facebook have powicies which censor posts containing dings such as nudity and hate speech.[63] Beginning in wate 2016, Twitter has been banning sewect accounts associated wif Western right-wing powitics. This has generated controversy among conservative groups, wif awwegations of powiticawwy motivated censorship.[64] Censorship of right wing powiticaw commentary has awso occurred on YouTube, wif content from channews such as PragerU and Pauw Joseph Watson being pwaced in a restricted-view setting.[65][66]

Controversy has awso arisen over de edics of censoring fake news articwes on sociaw media web sites after Hiwwary Cwinton's woss in de 2016 United States presidentiaw ewection. The rowe of fake news distributed via sociaw media in infwuencing ewections emerged as a popuwar topic of debate in 2016, and continues to invoke vigorous debate in 2018 as sociaw media consumption increases among warge demographics.[67][68]

Since de earwy 1980s, advocates of video games have emphasized deir use as an expressive medium, arguing for deir protection under de waws governing freedom of speech and awso as an educationaw toow. Detractors argue dat video games are harmfuw and derefore shouwd be subject to wegiswative oversight and restrictions. Many video games have certain ewements removed or edited due to regionaw rating standards.[69][70] For exampwe, in de Japanese and PAL Versions of No More Heroes, bwood spwatter and gore is removed from de gamepway. Decapitation scenes are impwied, but not shown, uh-hah-hah-hah. Scenes of missing body parts after having been cut off, are repwaced wif de same scene, but showing de body parts fuwwy intact.[71]

Surveiwwance and censorship are different. Surveiwwance can be performed widout censorship, but it is harder to engage in censorship widout some form of surveiwwance.[72] And even when surveiwwance does not wead directwy to censorship, de widespread knowwedge or bewief dat a person, deir computer, or deir use of de Internet is under surveiwwance can wead to sewf-censorship.[73]

Protection of sources is no wonger just a matter of journawistic edics; it increasingwy awso depends on de journawist's computer skiwws and aww journawists shouwd eqwip demsewves wif a "digitaw survivaw kit" if dey are exchanging sensitive information onwine or storing it on a computer or mobiwe phone.[74][75] And individuaws associated wif high-profiwe rights organizations, dissident, protest, or reform groups are urged to take extra precautions to protect deir onwine identities.[76]

The former Soviet Union maintained a particuwarwy extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The main organ for officiaw censorship in de Soviet Union was de Chief Agency for Protection of Miwitary and State Secrets generawwy known as de Gwavwit, its Russian acronym. The Gwavwit handwed censorship matters arising from domestic writings of just about any kind—even beer and vodka wabews. Gwavwit censorship personnew were present in every warge Soviet pubwishing house or newspaper; de agency empwoyed some 70,000 censors to review information before it was disseminated by pubwishing houses, editoriaw offices, and broadcasting studios. No mass medium escaped Gwavwit's controw. Aww press agencies and radio and tewevision stations had Gwavwit representatives on deir editoriaw staffs.[citation needed]

When a pubwisher comes under pressure to suppress a book, but has awready entered into a contract wif de audor, dey wiww sometimes effectivewy censor de book by dewiberatewy ordering a smaww print run and making minimaw, if any, attempts to pubwicize it. This practice became known in de earwy 2000s as privishing (private pubwishing).[77]

Censorship has been criticized droughout history for being unfair and hindering progress. In a 1997 essay on Internet censorship, sociaw commentator Michaew Landier cwaims dat censorship is counterproductive as it prevents de censored topic from being discussed. Landier expands his argument by cwaiming dat dose who impose censorship must consider what dey censor to be true, as individuaws bewieving demsewves to be correct wouwd wewcome de opportunity to disprove dose wif opposing views.[78]

Censorship is often used to impose moraw vawues on society, as in de censorship of materiaw considered obscene. Engwish novewist E. M. Forster was a staunch opponent of censoring materiaw on de grounds dat it was obscene or immoraw, raising de issue of moraw subjectivity and de constant changing of moraw vawues. When de novew Lady Chatterwey's Lover was put on triaw in 1960, Forster wrote:[79]

Lady Chatterwey's Lover is a witerary work of importance...I do not dink dat it couwd be hewd obscene, but am in a difficuwty here, for de reason dat I have never been abwe to fowwow de wegaw definition of obscenity. The waw tewws me dat obscenity may deprave and corrupt, but as far as I know, it offers no definition of depravity or corruption, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Censorship by country cowwects information on censorship, internet censorship, press freedom, freedom of speech, and human rights by country and presents it in a sortabwe tabwe, togeder wif winks to articwes wif more information, uh-hah-hah-hah. In addition to countries, de tabwe incwudes information on former countries, disputed countries, powiticaw sub-units widin countries, and regionaw organizations.

^Ashwey, John; Jayousi, Nedaw (December 2013). "The Connection between Pawestinian Cuwture and de Confwict". Discourse, Cuwture, and Education in de Israewi-Pawestinian Confwict(PDF). netanya.ac.iw (Report). Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Israew Office. p. 55. Retrieved 21 May 2017. In 1980, Israew banned art exhibitions and paintings of “powiticaw significance”, wif de grouping of de four cowours of de Pawestinian fwag in any one painting awso forbidden, uh-hah-hah-hah.

^Due to wegaw concerns de OpenNet Initiative does not check for fiwtering of chiwd pornography and because deir cwassifications focus on technicaw fiwtering, dey do not incwude oder types of censorship.

Major, Patrick; Mitter, Rana (2004), "East is East and West is West?", in Major, Patrick, Across de Bwocs: Expworing Comparative Cowd War Cuwturaw and Sociaw History, Taywor & Francis, Inc., ISBN978-0-7146-8464-2

Abbott, Randy. "A Criticaw Anawysis of de Library-Rewated Literature Concerning Censorship in Pubwic Libraries and Pubwic Schoow Libraries in de United States During de 1980s." Project for degree of Education Speciawist, University of Souf Fworida, December 1987.

Birmingham, Kevin, "The Most Dangerous Book: The Battwe for James Joyce's Uwysses", London (Head of Zeus Ltd), 2014, ISBN978-1594203367

Siwber, Radomír. Partisan media and modern censorship: media infwuence on Czech powiticaw partisanship and de media's creation of wimits to pubwic opposition and controw of exercising power in de Czech Repubwic in de 1990s. First edition, uh-hah-hah-hah. Brno: Tribun EU, 2017. 86 stran, uh-hah-hah-hah. Librix.eu. ISBN978-80-263-1174-4.